Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 526 Filed 03/21/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 10245
`
`M O R R I S , N I C H O L S , A R S H T & T U N N E L L L L P
`
`1201 NORTH M ARKE T S TRE ET
`P.O. B OX 1347
`WI L M IN GTON, DE L AWARE 19899-1347
`
`
`
`(302) 658-9200
`
`(302) 658-3989 FAX
`
`JACK B. BLUMENFELD
`
`(302) 351-9291
`
`(302) 425-3012 FAX
`
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`
`
`
`March 21, 2013
`
`
`
`BY E-FILING
`
`The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
`U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
`J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building
`844 N. King Street, Room 4124, Unit 31
`Wilmington, DE 19801-3568
`
`Re: MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc., C.A. No. 10-258 (SLR) (MPT)
`
`Dear Judge Robinson:
`
`On December 13, 2012, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of MobileMedia and against
`Apple as to infringement and validity of claims 23 and 24 of U.S. Patent No. 6,070,068, claims
`5, 6 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 6,253,075, and claim 73 of U.S. Patent No. 6,427,078. D.I. 507.
`The Court entered a Rule 54(b) judgment on December 17, 2012, D.I. 513, and briefing is
`complete on Apple’s motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial.
`
`While the Court considers Apple’s JMOL motion, MobileMedia would like to begin the
`discovery necessary to allow the parties to be prepared to try the damages case as soon after the
`Court rules (if in MMI’s favor) as possible. In a meet and confer on this issue, Apple has taken
`the position that any damages discovery is premature. MobileMedia respectfully requests a
`status conference to discuss the next phases of the case.
`
`We are aware of the Court’s recent order staying a case in a similar posture until after the
`Federal Circuit rules on the appropriateness of an interim liability appeal in the Robert Bosch
`LLC v. Pylon Manufacturing Corp. case (Nos. 2011-1363, 2011-1364). MobileMedia believes,
`however, that proceeding with damages discovery would be the most efficient course of action in
`this case. Apple continues to market and sell the infringing products. Thus, taking discovery
`now will preserve evidence that might otherwise be lost. Further, the issue of whether an interim
`appeal on the liability issues is appropriate is not yet ripe. Indeed, the approach MobileMedia
`proposes is consistent with the position Apple has taken in its case against Samsung pending in
`the Northern District of California:
`
`

`
`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR Document 526 Filed 03/21/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 10246
`
`The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
`March 21, 2013
`Page 2
`
`
`
`Further delay is fundamentally inconsistent with the patent system, which
`confers the exclusive right to use the patented invention or design and
`entitles the patentee to money damages for any past infringement. Further
`delay is fundamentally unjust. Samsung has infringed and continues to
`infringe, but it faces no immediate consequences.
` Under these
`circumstances, a prompt case management conference and a prompt new
`trial is appropriate so that the case may proceed to a final judgment.
`
`Apple’s March 19, 2013 Admin. Mot. Seeking An April 3 Case Management Conf., Dkt.
`No. 2283, Apple v. Samsung, No. 5:11-cv-01846-LHK (N.D. Cal.) at 2 (attached). Apple also
`argued to that court that the Federal Circuit cannot hear an interim appeal of an infringement
`verdict before a damages trial, because a Rule 54(b) judgment is not a final, appealable judgment
`on a separate claim for relief and that an interim appeal would “likely lead only to dismissal of
`the appeal with no substantive decision.” See id. at 1.
`
`MobileMedia seeks a prompt trial as to damages. It has offered to discuss a proposed
`pretrial schedule with Apple, but Apple refused to enter into such a discussion, saying such
`discussions are “premature”—the same position it criticized Samsung for taking in Apple v.
`Samsung.
`
`MobileMedia is available at the Court’s earliest convenience.
`
`Respectfully,
`
`/s/ Jack B. Blumenfeld
`
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`
`JBB/dam
`Enclosure
`All Counsel of Record (by email)
`cc:
`7067329